Apologies to all who had seen the now-deleted version of this thread previously (especially Ken who already voted!). I misunderstood proposal 4 so it (and only it) is revised slightly below.
_________________________________________________
Hey all -
Here are this year's rule change proposals. Please get votes in to me by next Thurs (Nov 15). Remember it's one vote per manager, not one vote per team. Rules will pass if voted for by a majority of those casting votes. Abstentions, either generally or on any specific proposal, are A-OK.
I'm listing all proposals I got from any owner here, along with some of the justifications I was given, but I strongly encourage anyone interested either way in these votes to comment and discuss here. If someone votes before the deadline and is later convinced to change their vote, that is also fine if they tell me of the change before the deadline.
Proposal One: Remove the GS limit for any pitcher with at least 1 GS in the MLB regular season, subject to a 35 GS cap (unless a pitcher has more than 35 GS in which case they get their actual GS. (Discussed by several people, submitted by me)
Rationale: All pitchers are already subject to the IP limit which would not change. It's a huge pain for me to keep track of actual GS for no actual benefit and there is no reason why owners should not have a bit more flexibility.
Proposal Two: Change playoff usage restrictions for pitchers as follows (From Rick and Eric)
IP per Playoff Series Based on Actual MLB IP
25-44 = 4
45-64 = 6
65-84 = 8
85-104 = 10
105-124 = 12
125+ = Unlimited
Rationale: Ties more closely to our playoff usage restrictions for batters and helps prevent overusage of relievers compared to a games-based usage restriction. This also allows more realistic swing-man playoff usage since the GS cap would not apply (although only those with starter ratings could start).
Proposal Three: Change regular-season roster cap to 32 cards plus up to 3 "little a" players from up to 30 cards plus up to 5 "little a" players. (From Kevin)
Rationale: Allows more realistic rosters now that MLB has more in-season call-ups rather than just September roster expansion. Also allows greater flexibility for roster design.
Proposal Four: Allow changes to ballpark dimensions up to +/- 3. (From Rick, Trav, and others)
Rationale: Tying ballpark configurations to MLB ones is kind of strange, especially since those change from year-to-year without our control. Limiting the change to +/- 3 and having to live with that for 3 years should address last year's concerns about extreme customization.
Sub-Vote For Proposal Four: Should the change be allowed each year or every three years? If you don't care about this, feel free to ignore and, if Proposal 4 passes, we will use the majority vote on this issue for its implementation.
Okay, your ballpark is AT&T Park. Here are the dimensions of your park last season
LH Single 1-9, RH Single 1-12
LH HR 1-1, RH HR 1-1
By allowing you to adust your dimensions up to a + or -3, you can change your dimensions to:
LH Single 1-7 (you decreased the LH Single from 9 to 6, or a -2 change)
RH Single 1-14 (you increased the RH Single from 12 to 15 , or a +2 change)
LH HR 1-2 (You increased the LH Rh from 1 to 2, or a +1 change)
RH HR 1-4 (You increased the RH HR from 1 to 4, or a +3 change)
In each of those instances above, you could have changed up to +/- 3, but you chose to change some of them by -2, another by 3, another by 1, and another by 2. So you have the same ballpark (still A&T Park), but have new dimensions that you have adjusted to your preferences.
Please let me know if you have any other questions on this.
If you wanted to change your park + or -3 you might as well change your park every year or like now every three years. I dont think you should be able to boost your park +12 or kill your park -12 thats to big of an addition or subtraction.
Sure, Saturday morning seems like a good time for a proposal rant!
Proposal One: RELUCTANT YES - I still prefer my more moderate proposal to use the +10% for both IP and GS. Although that would only allow 1-3 more starts for individual starters, that's still 15+ at the team level, depending on how many extra you have. That should really be sufficient to decrease the premium on starts and allow teams more flexibility on rotations. That increase would also be proportionate with IP, which would not be the case with 35 as the max for all starters. That can certainly be managed effectively through CM settings, but very few people are as obsessive about that as I am and a lot of league members prefer to keep them simple. We can provide some level of reality check when rotations are submitted, but I'm still not convinced that this is going to end well. I'm reluctantly voting for it anyway, but suspect that this is going actually lead to more pitchers being overused. Where does all that fine money go?
Proposal Two: STRONG YES - I came up with these ranges, so I feel contractually obligated to vote for this one. I do think it makes a lot more sense than the system we've been using that's tied to games pitched and makes anyone with 30+ games unlimited. This is more consistent with how we limit batter usage. I also tried to take into account that relievers do tend to get more work in the playoffs than regular season.
Proposal Three:RELUCTANT NO - While I'm on board with the intent here, once again I think my more moderate proposal is a better solution. Sadly, it was lost in the mail or not properly notarized or whatever. My preference is to maintain the current roster limits until they expand in Series 11, but allow teams to adjust that 30-man roster before each series. Increasing the regular roster to 32 players for the entire season just seems excessive to me, particularly since we tragically killed the fun of injuries. What are all those guys supposed to do? Do we really need 10-man bullpens? Also note that Strat won't allow more than 15 pitchers to be active each game anyway, so some game-to-game adjustment will probably be needed. I mean, MLB still uses 25-man rosters with that weird flex rule, so although 32 is only 2 more than we use now it still feels too extreme to me. It will probably pass anyway and I'll probably appreciate having those extra spots on the active roster, but my treasured principles require a No vote here.
Proposal Four: TENTATIVE YES - I like the idea of teams having more flexibility here to customize parks instead of being subject to the tyranny of Strat changing the park ratings every year. However, the proposal leaves out important details that are very important to me as the person who would be responsible for making these changes. I'm willing to go along with it if those details are satisfactory to me. If not, too bad. You'll get nothing and like it!
In regards to Prop 3, it would expand the regular season roster maximum from 30 to 32.....does that mean is just allows two more players to be on your roster or does that mean our "active roster" for each block is increased from 30 - 32?
Not sure I understand the distinction, but the rule would allow you to have a 32-man active roster all season, plus up to 3 "little a" guys that would be active at the end of the year. You would not choose from among your 35 guys which 32 are active for any given series, if that is the question.
Prop 3 - NO - I like the motivation behind this proposal, but as it is currently written, I can't support it. Allowing a 32 player active roster each block I think is overkill and too far from realistic roster management. I could certainly support a proposal that allows for a larger roster of non-prospect players, and also allows you to made adjustments to your 30 player active roster each block. For example, each team would be allowed a total roster size of 35 non-prospect players, and each block you decide what your active roster of 30 would be. This would eliminate any designation of "Little A" players....any player with over 100 PA's or 35 IP could be on your total roster of 35.
Bali votes yes on all, except the one where Travis can change the dimensions of the ballpark where Giancarlo and Bryce play. That one should always be a pitcher's park, no matter what....
